Beatles or Stones?

[MarkMgibson]

And Lennon was also a very underrated rhythm guitarist. He really drove the band, swung, and was pretty funky.

Actually all of the Beatles (besides Ringo) were fine guitar players.

 

[marchone]

All four were good drummers, too.

 

[dougjwray]

All four were good drummers, too.

Recently, I learned that Paul was the drummer on "Dear Prudence"; I went back and listened, and appreciated how thoughtful and original his performance is. He really is a phenomenally musical person.

 

[marchone]

Speaking of the Beatles give a listen to this Chicago indie band.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Stick_Player]

Recently, I learned that Paul was the drummer on "Dear Prudence"; I went back and listened, and appreciated how thoughtful and original his performance is. He really is a phenomenally musical person.

John Lennon was asked if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world. Lennon replied, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in the Beatles."

 

[marchone]

I remember that. Ringo was a good seasoned drummer when they got him but maybe no better than Pete Best. That episode will always remain shrouded in mystery.

 

[GregC]

Stones hands down. The Beatles were the fist boy band IMO and did like what 3 years of live shows and the rest were drippy trippy studio albums?

The Stones were rockers and spit into the wind. They are one of the few bands ever who can do it all rock, jazz , pop,disco,country ,blues.. and do it well. Listen to the Some Girls album that has 5 types of music on it from rock,motown ,punk country and blues.
Also the Stones had a frontman and IMO the best in rock ever. Watch a Beatles video of them playing live ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

But last but not least 50 years of rockin for the Stones the original bad boys of rock...Beatles cant touch them here.

Wow. I said earlier in the thread that this whole topic is purely subjective and I meant that, but this post makes it sound like you've spent very little time listening to the Beatles and jumped to some conclusions.

Edit: For the record, I really do like the Stones a lot. But I am hard-pressed to think of times when they "spit into the wind" stylistically. They started out doing blues covers, followed the Beatles into writing originals, followed the Beatles again into psychedelic music (with very bad results, IMO), and later put out a couple disco-ish songs around 1980 when that became the popular trend. Their great work was in between the psychedelia and the disco.

 

[MarkMgibson]

Recently, I learned that Paul was the drummer on "Dear Prudence"; I went back and listened, and appreciated how thoughtful and original his performance is. He really is a phenomenally musical person.

I remember a Guitar Player Magazine article from years ago that broke down the White Album - who played what instrument on what song. It was amazing just how versatile they were as musicians. I was surprised by who played what on different songs. I can't remember much of it, but I'm sure it's around on-line somewhere.

 

[mellowinman]

I remember that. Ringo was a good seasoned drummer when they got him but maybe no better than Pete Best. That episode will always remain shrouded in mystery.

Ringo was a far better drummer than Pete Best.

 

[bassinplace]

Recently, I learned that Paul was the drummer on "Dear Prudence"; I went back and listened, and appreciated how thoughtful and original his performance is. He really is a phenomenally musical person.

IIRC, I believe he played all the drums on the Band On The Run album, too.

 

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Recently, I learned that Paul was the drummer on "Dear Prudence";

Same for "Back In The U.S.S.R.", for which he also recorded the guitar solo.

 

[dougjwray]

Ringo was a far better drummer than Pete Best.

Absolutely. From what I've read, everyone knew Ringo as "the best drummer in Liverpool", and when he first joined the Beatles, the other three were extra respectful toward him. With Rory Storm & the Hurricanes (his previous band) he even had his own "Starr Time" feature where he would come out and sing a number or play a solo; so he was more of an established, seasoned performer than the other three. Plus, he was the oldest (about 3 months older than Lennon).
He was not the hapless stooge that so many people make him out to be, but rather merely the only guy in the band who wasn't a songwriter and singer of legendary proportions.

 

[MarkMgibson]

Ringo was a far better drummer than Pete Best.

Yep. He gets slagged off a lot, but Ringo really is a very good drummer indeed. His style is instantly recognizable, and that says a lot in itself.

 

[Floyd Eye]

IIRC, I believe he played all the drums on the Band On The Run album, too.

He played everything on McCartney except for Linda's harmonies.


He brought in Denny Seiwell on drums and Hugh McCracken on guitar for Ram.

Wildlife saw the addition of Denny Laine and was Wings debut album.

Henry McCullough joined Wings in 1972.

McCullogh and Seiwell quit before BOTR, so only The McCartneys and Denny Laine were on the album. Paul played bass, drums and lead guitar.

 

[mellowinman]

Yep. He gets slagged off a lot, but Ringo really is a very good drummer indeed. His style is instantly recognizable, and that says a lot in itself.

I have to go with experience on this one. My cover band has worked with six different "actual" drummers, and several fill-ins on more or less the same set list over four years.

Most of them have managed a lot of various John Bonham, Joey Kramer, Bun E Carlos, Mitch Mitchell and Nick Mason parts with either relative ease, or a bit of work, but every single one of them has had a much harder time nailing Ringo's parts on:

• Don't Let me Down
• Yer Blues (lots of time changes!)
• While my Guitar Gently Weeps

Ringo had a completely different part, and distinctive style on each one of those, and many other Beatles songs. He was absolutely a BRILLIANT drummer, and played with an excellent feel, and had an instinct for the material. He made songs BETTER with his drumming ability, and was probably one of the all time great drummers.

When Lennon said, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in the Beatles," he was half-joking. Lennon was a joker. I don't know why people don't get that.

Ringo wasn't a TECHNICAL drummer. He had trouble rolling across the toms, because he played backwards, being left handed but set up for right handed. He had some interesting deficiencies, technically speaking, but he more than made up for them in creativity and style. And he was rock-solid; every bit as solid as any drummer you can name.

As soon as someone starts telling me how "bad" Ringo is, all they've done is proven to me that they either haven't really listened to the drums on Beatles songs, (and I mean right back to the early stuff,) or that they are completely ignorant about rock drumming.

Could Ringo play in Rush?

Hell no.

Could Neil Peart play in the Beatles?

Not a chance.

Ringo's drum contributions are singularly unique, and stand up very well over the test of time. He will be famous forever.

 

[chaosMK]

Can't get into either of them. They are coming from a time/energy period that I can't relate to at all.

 

[EagleMoon]

I can only think of a handful of Stones songs that even care to listen to. The Beatles are a classic and have influenced scores of musicians. They also have a wider range of appeal.

 

[marchone]

As much of a Beatles fan as I am I think the world would be a poorer place if not for the Rolling Stones.

Or as the Brit tabloids call them these days ... the Strolling Bones.

 

[Hues]

Can't get into either of them. They are coming from a time/energy period that I can't relate to at all.

Not even this?...Invalid Link Removed

 

[TinIndian]

Hell I like em both, but I'll take the Beatles over the Stones anyday. The Stones are a classic blues rock band. The Beatles could do everything and invented entire new genre's along the way. Big plus for Paul's basslines.